phik

I have a judicial hearing today, at which I will defend myself against the corrupt money-for-”safety” driver-milking revenue generation scam, of immense police resources dedicated to issuing a quota of speeding citations aimed at the sole target of filling the city’s Scrooge McDuck coffers while smugly lecturing motorists about the imaginary dangers of driving with the flow of traffic.

You could make a credible argument that the six or eight hours that I’ve spent preparing for this hearing aren’t justified by the $250 fine. Of course, on top of that will be at least $3000 over six years from the second scam, automobile insurance surcharges, which use this citation to reach the conclusion that I am insufficiently able to recognize the safe speed of my motor coach. But I frankly wouldn’t care if it were a single dollar, there is no way, no way, that I am paying this fine until I have exhausted every option available to me, because a 30 MPH posted speed limit on a newly-resurfaced four-lane divided highway is almost comically absurd.

And, it turns out, rightly illegal. There are so many problems with this citation.

First, MGL c. 85 s. 2 specifies that traffic control devices — including speed limits — are subject to the Commonwealth’s Procedures for Speed Zoning on State and Municipal Roadways, which must itself be substantially conformant to the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Both documents specify that posted speed limits will be established only after a thorough engineering study, and the Commonwealth’s manual goes on to specify in detail the precise methodology for collecting and interpreting the data from such a study. They both say that the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic speed is the national standard by which a speed limit should be set.

The Commonwealth manual goes on to say very explicitly: unless this procedure is followed, the posting “is in violation of Chapter 90 Section 18, and is therefore considered illegal and unenforceable.”

To that end, I sent a request under MGL c. 66 s. 10 and 950 CMR 32.05, Mass’s implementation of the Federal Freedom of Information Act, to the general counsel of the Department of Conservation and Recreation (which, as we will establish later, is the controlling jurisdiction of Storrow Drive where I was cited). Although both statutes and the Commonwealth’s own Guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law indicate that an approval or specific denial must be received within ten calendar days, I am still awaiting a proper response.

Next, the trooper didn’t use radar or laser — which have their own issues, but I digress — to determine my alleged violation, he estimated my speed and then followed me in his car. Anyone, presumably even the trooper, will agree that it’s important for a police evidence-gathering tool to be accurate when it’s used to charge someone with a crime. To that end, I sent a separate request for public documents to the general counsel of the Massachusetts State Police, requesting, among other things, the record from the police logbook indicating precisely which vehicle was being driven by the trooper on that night; a record of calibration from a mechanic certified to perform speedometer calibration; and the complete vehicle maintenance and accident history since the date of calibration. So far, no response.

Moving on, 350 CMR 4.01 (which is — surprise! — not on the web) specifically regulates the speed of vehicles on Storrow Drive and other roadways under the jurisdiction of the Department of Conservation and Recreation. I have a letter from MassHighway confirming that Storrow is, indeed, under the DCR’s jurisdiction.

However, the Massachusetts Uniform Citation that I was issued charges me with violation of MGL c. 90 s. 17. This is the wrong statute, for the wrong jurisdiction.

Finally, in a relatively minor technicality, MGL c. 90 s. 2 requires the trooper to request the signature of the violator, which they almost never do, apparently on the grounds that giving the driver a pen is giving them a lethal weapon.

I only asked the judge for a continuance to give the Commonwealth time to honour my requests for public documents, or failing that, to get the Supervisor of Public Records to compel them to do so. It’s possible that he’d have found me not responsible anyways, but it’s important that I have all of my evidence to present: if I need to appeal, I can only argue that he made an error in law; I can’t introduce new evidence.

It was pretty weird. I explained about the documents, and he said “Let me stop you right there,” reached over, picked a book off his shelf, and read silently for 3 or 4 minutes. He said “You know, I was almost sure that there was something in here about discovery in these cases, because every 6 or 8 months someone brings this up. But I can’t find it. If you want to borrow this, you can look.” I didn’t find it either. Turns out there’s nothing about discovery in the trial court rules for civil motor vehicle infractions.

Anyways, I got a continuance, of course. See you again on January 19th.